Inflammatory Content

The focus of this topic is going to focus on the cross section of art called “media.” This encompasses books, radio, plays, movies, television shows, video games, sculpture, etc.

By inflammatory content, I refer to certain elements that tend to evoke a strong visceral response – violence, sexuality, foul language, religion, philosophy. Specifically, whether and when it’s appropriate to include inflammatory content.

If you’ve read my past twoposts, you can likely see the direction this is headed.

This is very much a case when you apply the principles of judging art in a concrete sense. You identify the interpretation/function that most closely identifies with the art, and apply the nobility of the function.

Warren Spector recently made news with his claim that the video games industry is “fetishizing violence.” It’s no secret that video games have a history of violence, and that there have been some particularly violent and graphic games in recent history. The question becomes “to what end?” Is the purpose of the game to revel in the violence and gore? Is the purpose of the violence to carry the narrative? Is the violence simply there to “spice up” the narrative? Mr. Spector seems to imply that we are at best “spicing it up” and at worst revelling in violence in games. In competitive first-person shooters, this is particularly prominent, rewarding the player for headshots and kill streaks.
In all honesty, there is likely an element of all three in many recent games. God of War and Mortal Kombat are particularly severe examples of revelling in violence – the point seems to be to go as over-the-top as possible. On the other hand, we have the Call of Duty Series, or the Mass Effect series. In these games, the violence is primarily to carry the plot – the violence isn’t the raison d’etre, but it is a very real element. Even in these games, however, there’s a push to use the violence as a stylistic flourish, to emphasise the “cool” factor.

But that’s all from the design side. I would argue, in fact, that it is the design side that fetishizes violence. I like to imagine that gamers played God of War because the gameplay was enjoyable. I realize that many people played Mortal Kombat for the over-the-top violence, but I also note that it’s relatively unpopular among fighting games – it’s sold more on the name and controversy. A game may get lots of attention for its inflammatory content, but few people seek out games for that reason, and the sales numbers tend to carry it out. Violence won’t sink video games for the same reason that storytelling won’t elevate them – the core demographic remains focused on gameplay.

So the extreme violence in games doesn’t really add much to a game’s value, and actually devalues the game as it fetishizes violence. But violence doesn’t necessarily hurt a game. Half Life is quite violent, but the violence is in the surface of a greater narrative, executed in a manner that enhances the overall story.

Movies work the same way. Guns and explosions-fests are recognized as cinematic junk food – a low value entertainment, though some argue that it’s actively detrimental to agency and self-actualization – Maslow’s highest hierarchy. The catch, however, is that much of experience, especially the act of consumption, can eb argued as detrimental to this highest hierarchy. While this argument seems to make sense, it is absurd. Maslow’s hierarchy is illustrated as a pyramid for that very reason – you cannot adequately fulfill the higher needs without a base of the lower needs. While one shouldn’t become absorbed in consumption, it is equally detrimental to neglect your basic needs in the pursuit of self-actualization. So a little junk food can be okay. In fact, as it can serve the lower needs, it is in it’s lesser sense a good.

And, of course, this carries over into foul language, sexual content, and all those other sorts of content. Is it in the service of the greater experience, or is the experience in the service of the content? In pornography, the entire product is directed toward sexual gratification. In quite a large section of media, however, sexual content is directed toward a higher purpose – generally progression of the narrative.

And we then return to that third possibility – inserting inflammatory content to “spice it up.” Generally, this is gratuitous violence, or a gratuitous sex scene, or gratuitous foul language. In other words, it is unnecessary, and likely detrimental. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to separate “gratuitous” from “contributory,” and there is often a difference of opinion on the matter. However, the distinction between gratuitous and contributory is the key element in judging the value of such inflammatory insertions. It is relatively obvious, by comparison, to determine if the inflammatory is in the service of the art, or if the art is in the service of the inflammatory.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

I’m pretty sure I disagree with most of what you’ve said here, but I also can’t find suitable handholds to really address *why* I disagree.

I don’t think design fetishizes violence any more than any other aspect of the gaming community. I don’t think games are limited as art by the fact that they are “games” and their audience is gamers, and so gameplay is a factor in their value. I don’t think violence is merely a flourish in games like Call of Duty or Mass Effect or Half Life. I don’t think any of Marlow’s needs are in conflict with each other; rather it’s the fact that a person can not adequately address higher needs if lower needs have not been met. That’s not conflict, that’s dependency. I can’t make sense of the rhetorical “Is it in the service of the greater experience, or is the experience in the service of the content? I don’t think you have a very robust definition of “gratuitous.”

I think the underpinning issue to all of this disagreement is, at some level, a misunderstanding of the narrative art. It is storytelling, sure, but it’s more than merely telling a story — a good story addresses ideas and causes the audience to think. I would argue that violence, sex, and foul language don’t need to “support” a narrative to be acceptable, I think they can themselves be the focus of the narrative, the issues which the audience is intended to think about.

Even more so, I feel that video games have a unique quality versus other media in that they are engaging in a way that static media simply can not be. By playing a game you take an active role in the discussion of it’s themes; perhaps not every player will do so to any great extent, but none can escape — the act of playing the game requires that you engage its themes at some level.

I’m rambly and disorganized, but the end point is this: sex, violence, foul language aren’t simply “contributory” or “unnecessary” — they can be the focus of the game, and in being the focus be neither ‘fetishizing’ nor detrimental to Marlow’s hierarchy. Discussing themes and issues around sex and violence can directly address and improve Marlow’s highest needs of morality, creativity, acceptance of facts, and so on. It doesn’t HAVE to be — a discussion of sex that is immature, inappropriate, poorly-handled and so on is still a bad discussion — but it CAN be.

I’m not as certain that we DO disagree, but I may be wrong. I’d be more likely to lay the blame on myself.

I agree that games are not and should not be limited by their “gaminess.”

I wasn’t saying that violence in those games was merely a flourish. I get the sense, however, that, in some cases, we get violence for the sake of there being violence. This is a difficult, and very delicate subject, so I’m still trying to work out what exactly my own thoughts are on the subject.

I’m uncertain what you’re saying in relation to Maslow’s hierarchy. I didn’t think I stated that Maslow’s needs came into conflict with each other. I argued that some activities can serve some needs at the detriment of others, but I consider that an entirely different issue.

The experience vs. content question is revisiting the role of function. Are you looking at Michaelangelo’s David to get turned on, or are you watching “Flesh Gordon” to get a greater insight into the nature of mankind? It really comes to judging things on the subjective level and the objective level. The objective level is my previous idea of “value” – how well it works in the service of Maslow’s hierarchy under its most natural interpretation. The subjective level is the personal experience – a debased individual can easily interpret high value works in a manner that further works against Maslow’s Hierarchy, while a suitably disciplined individual can potentially interpret low value works in an edifying manner.

As for the meaning of gratuitous? I don’t doubt I was unclear. I’d say when there’s not a suitable answer to the questions “What does this element add? Would something be lost if this element is absent?” It is hard to go beyond “gratuitousness is in the eye of the beholder.” I need to think more on this.

I kind of wonder if your “support” vs “focus” is more a matter of semantics. I imagine by “focus,” you mean “relevant or central to the theme.” I did not mean “support” as “subservient” or anything like that. My idea was more “a significant element” – if it is not present, something important is lost.

Agreed on the subject of games. The active role requires a level of engagement not required by other media, and, in several cases, not possible.

Also agreed entirely on the end point. The intent of this post was, in a sense, to ask the question of when inflammatory content was appropriate, and attempt to answer it. It’s a difficult subject, and probably one of my more poorly-formed ideas. I will definitely be revisiting this thought in the relative future.